Hide Article Text (OCR)
The other cheekTHE EDITOR, Sir:Subsequent to the American attack on Libya, a number of people particularly on the radio call-in programmes have said that America and/or President Reagan “shotdd have turned the other cheek. Without wishing to become involved in political debate or theological dispute, I would appreciate some enlightenment on the reasoning behind this moral exhortation. What is meant, in this case, by “turning the other cheek?It seems to me the original cheek-smiting consisted of the murders of several American (and other) citizens. Must'l assume that turning the other cheek means either allowing this to continue indefinitely, or actively offering up more cirizens for slaughter? This may well be a thoroughly Christian attitude, but I confess to perceiving a difference between Sunday School and international politics.I have always understood, perhaps wrongly, that one of the fundamental responsibilities of a government was the protection of its citizens, both *at home and abroad; failure tto do so would be regarded as incompetence or dereliction of duty.In “The Prince”, Niccolo Ma-chiavelli made the point that the actions of the Prince (i.e. the head of state, or the government collectively) could not be judged by the standards of private morality. The Prince (or president, or Prime Minister) as Head of. State, is not a private individual acting in a private capacity. He (or she) represents the State as a whole and must act in a manner which benefits the State — simply put, the best interests of the citizens mustTMUCH BETTgIf)AN WHEN A WASvWORSE DOC!be served, which surely included jrhe preservation of rheir livtA against attack by a foreign power. ‘Should the Axis Powers have beep allowed to carry out their inccrt-:ions between 1939 and 1945?) 1It took many years and cosjt many lives in Europe to establish the principle of the separation of Church and State, a principle which has been entrenched in rhe Constitution of the United States. America is not a theocracy; possibly Jra* s. Nor is America a '‘Christian^ state except insofar as most of it£ citizens are Christian, rather thaji Buddhist, Mohammedan or Hindi. The laws of thy United States d2 not derive from the teachings ojt Christianity, nor are laws or arty country specifically based on religious principles. Any coincidence is a reflection of the pragmatic and Socially valuable aspects of r ftp ■religion which may be peculiar ti)rhe people of the society. Why, flt;Sr instance, is assault and • battery i .crime in any country? Lack lt;jf piety? False religion? Make vuit* for police and lawyers? Or is u ius!r plain counter-productive (not tjb mention ill-mannered) for the ungodly to spend their time smiting with impunity the cheeks of the righteous? ' ***'I am sure Ronald Reagan is a good Christian; but I contend :hat President Reagan can have no religion, The President cannot allow the teachings of private mortality to prevent him from carrying out his public duty as Head of State. [There is a distinction between the pian and the Presidency; a Head o'State cannot govern on the basis ot his private religious beliefs. His actions must be judged on :heir effectiveness in furthering rhe inter ests of the State and its citizens. In this regard, how would ColonelGaddafi measure up?I am not concerned here with the pros ahd.cons of the U.S.— Libya confrontation; what bothers me is the feeling that those who all for “turning the other cheek''ave not thought through the !ogi~ al consequences of their assertion. O doubt they know what is in heir minds, but I do not, and if omeone could enlighten me on his, perhaps I would lose rhe sense of despair that we are not yet ready for the twentieth century, let alone he twenty-first. As an example of re-emprive paranoia in the inter-ts of counter-measures, perhaps e should consider the possibility bf nuclear power-plant “accidents as a new form of warfare.Finally, I ask what may be an unfair questions: If Jamaican citizens were being systematical/ attacked and killed abroad, would hese same people offer their rela-ives and friends also for slaughter? Would they allow others ^tcEhus smitten, neither comblaiSiig ior attempting to restrain the smit-br? Are they, in short, willing to die for their beliefs?^ - ! am, etc.,M. DAVID BUCKLEY •12 McKenzie Close,Kingston 8.May 1,1986.
Newspaper Details
Kingston Gleaner
Kingston, Kingston, JM
Mon, May 12, 1986
Page 8
Full Page
Clipped by
University O.
JM 22 Nov 2018
Other Publications Near Kingston, Kingston
Kingston Gleaner
Kingston Weekly Gleaner
Kingston Outlook Magazine
Colonial Standard
De Cordovas Advertising Sheet
